Statutory rape laws

In my opinion, they're utter bullshit. If two people are biologically able to have sex, and there's genuine consent between them, then you don't have the right to use the law to punish them for doing it! In this day and age all they do is serve as a "shortcut" around having a court do its job and determine whether there was genuine consent or not, and a way for Mama Bears and Papa Wolves to land a Star Crossed Lover in jail. In other words, it makes people guilty even if proven innocent. These laws lump people over a certain age who have consensual sex with a mature person under a certain age with horrible people who do something as atrocious as rape a little boy.

And no, "Romeo and Juliet" laws don't work very well.

If an adult has sex with a five-year-old, it should be easy for a court to find out that there was no consent. And even if the defense tries to prove that there was consent, only a literally insane court would be able to rule that it was genuine. Even if, in some crazy impossible situation where there was consent, injury would inevitably have ensued in the intercourse so they'd end up in jail anyway.

If an 18-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old and it becomes a court case, they should have to prove that it was rape just like they have to when they are both above the age of consent. It should be even easier if they really aren't able to consent. If there was persuasion or coercion or anything that makes the consent not really consent, then there'll be evidence just like there is when they are both adults.

edited 6th Aug '11 8:26:23 PM by TorchicBlaziken

Penetration of a five-year-old by an adult would lead to injury, but there are other forms of sexual conduct. In some cases, the five-year-old might not actually be harmed, or at least might not show the harm until many years later, so this gets to be a really ugly argument. (Personally, I'd take the position that the adult should have just waited for the kid to be older. On the other hand, I get really creeped out whenever someone insists that a person who did not suffer psychological trauma from childhood sex is secretly suffering on the inside, and must be forced to admit his or her suffering in order to heal from it.)

edited 6th Aug '11 8:28:21 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

We already have a thread on age of consent laws, don't we?

Be not afraid...

I thought the subject of that thread was pedophilia in particular.

There's a reason the law is the way it is, and I'll use your example to explain why.

Thirteen year olds are fucking stupid, and they're just not ready to make some decisions (like having sex with an eighteen year old).

It's like joining the military, or getting beer/cigarettes. There's just some things you can't trust kids to be rational about.

Says you*

.....or maybe it's different for boys.

That said...isn't this exactly the same as the other thread?

edited 6th Aug '11 11:54:39 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Yes and No. I'd argue it's not that you can't trust them to be rational about it- its just that they aren't well-equipped to handle the consequences.

I admittedly don't know how most Statutory Rape laws work, but I usually agree with them as long as there is a provision allowing for age difference to be relevant when determining whether or not it's rape. For example, an 18 year old sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend isn't committing rape. The laws I know of usually set 2 years as the limit of acceptable age difference, and I'd probably be ok with up to 3 years age difference being legal.

edited 7th Aug '11 12:00:15 AM by cadeonehalf

Who builds troper pages?

I like you citing star-crossed lovers and romeo and Juliet in the OP. You do remember how that relationship ended, right?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I believe the difficulty isn't that they're too stupid to make choices, although that's part of it. The difficulty is that someone in their twenties or older has a sort of a power over 13 and 14 year olds, by virtue of being an adult. So that it's difficult to tell how much of a relationship is genuine choice and how much is just pressure from someone who's older and wiser and therefore must know better than you do about sex, right? All you have to do is trust them, etc.

edited 7th Aug '11 12:26:13 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

@Thatguy: Romeo and Juliet is legal terminology referring to laws that grant exemption from statutory rape charges to teens if they meet certain criteria (eg, being within two years of each other).

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

The law shouldn't be taken literally. It's meant to protect people from exploitation, and deter the would-be predators.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

The statutory system isn't perfect, but it's about the best we're going to get. It wouldn't really be a matter of changing the law—that wouldn't help, even—so much as it should be how we have the law system enforce it. However, as noted, it's rather difficult to tell between genuine consent and simple pressure with young kids (15 > being young). I see no reason why anyone under 16 or 17 should be having sex anyhow.

There's also the Double Standard of female statutory on a male victim versus male statutory on a female or male victim... (i.e. "whoa, dude, you had sex with the hot teacher/older chick" versus "damn, dude, that sucks!")

This, basically. The law has an age of consent. That age of consent generally, more often than not, works. Regardless of whether or not you think it doesn't work in your case, that doesn't mean you can just ignore it. Especially in the case of an adult, who should damn well know better. I have little sympathy, therefore.

Besides that, there shouldn't be an automatic assumption that someone who is, say, 17 in a state with an 18-year requirement, is actually giving consent. Yes, at that point there should be proving to do, but just because you'd think a 17-year-old would be capable of dealing with that doesn't mean they are.

edited 7th Aug '11 4:34:40 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

The statutory rape system isn't about whether or not consent is given. It's about the fact that people below the age of consent tend to be very reckless, rarely have a proper understanding of the consequences of their actions, and are hardly ever capable of dealing with said consequences.

It may not seem that bad, but why do you think there are so many accidental childbirths in the modern age? It's because a lot of people will have sex whenever the opportunity arises, thinking that they'll be safe from pregnancy.

And is a 13 year old really capable of going through that kind of thing? Essentially it boils down to this: young people don't always know what's best for them.

Leave your dignity at the door.

>And is a 13 year old really capable of going through that kind of thing?

Ao C laws aren't universal, it depends on the culture of the country.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

Agree with the OP. Not much else to add.

Enjoy the Inferno...

@Loni: Well put

@DG: I know what the laws are, it's just amusing bringing up a tragedy in your defense. Especially one that's ending almost always elicits cries of "stupid kids."

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

I don't necessarily have problems with statutory rape laws per se. I do have problems with overzealous DA's who go out of their way to prosecute when similarly aged youth are in a healthy relationship that just happens to go afoul of strict interpretation.

The other thing I have specific problems with are the so called 'Megan's Laws' (I think these are the right ones) that require said people to register as sex offenders, with all the stigma and restrictions that follow. Now, I agree that we should keep tabs on the truly heinous offenders, but I do have a problem with a couple that's, say, 17 and 14, consummate three years into the relationship (at 20 and 17), and then the older one is treated as a rapist and has to carry the social stigma with him (or her, but usually him, since Rape is OK when its Female on Male) for the rest of his life.

edited 7th Aug '11 1:41:28 PM by DarkConfidant

Not sure if this is too off-topic or not.

Hypothetically...

What do people think of a relationship between a 18 and a...whatever age is too young for the 18 year old(14) if...

a)They knew each other for 10+ years(in other words, he was her playmate when they were ~8 and ~3)...or...

b)Parental approval is given...or...

c)Both?

Clearly this is beyond Romeo and Juliet's age difference. On the other hand, there is clearly no ill intent.

Ignoring the legal perspective(where the guy will be arrested as a child molestor and registered for life), how do people morally feel about these situations?

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Knowing someone doesn't immediately mean that they can be trusted. There's really no guarantee that they know what's best or aren't taking advantage of the child, and no amount of time spent with them will change that.

And a parent who gives consent for their child isn't a very good parent, especially since they're viewing the situation as an onlooker. Again, a child usually can't handle that stress, and any half-decent parent knows it.

edited 7th Aug '11 5:23:04 PM by Heartbreaker

Leave your dignity at the door.

I don't agree with statutory rape laws either. I think that they should be abolished altogether (because rape is rape and it's easy to tell if it wasn't consensual) or at least lowered to the age of 10 or 11.

According to this chart, the age of consent in Washington state is 16 for boys and 18 for girls. That is sexist towards both men and women, and it is bullshit. And the worst part is that the age of consent laws are set up like that in a lot of other states too.

Yes, teenagers make stupid decisions regarding relationships. Who hasn't had a totally corny "sweetheart" situation in high school? The thing is, most of them will get over it when they become adults. Yet under the law, a 17-year-old man who has consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend is committing a crime, because according to the state of Washington, 16-year-old girls do not have the mental capacity for making decisions about when to have sex. {{And That's Terrible}}.

edited 7th Aug '11 5:41:58 PM by LilPaladinSuzy

Would you kindly click my dragons?

All I can say change the laws so both genders have the same age of consent.I have a feeling those laws have been in place for a long time and no one has ever thought of changing them.

What?!...that's almost as big a bullshit as assigning different age of consents for different sex acts and orientations!

edited 7th Aug '11 6:17:30 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Honestly, 10 or 11 is too low. I had no idea about how sex worked when I was 11, and my curiosity led me into a situation where an older boy took advantage of me.

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Indeed. I would argue that 16 is the bare minimum, but separate ages for different sexes is ridiculous. If there's some kind of scientific argument behind it (please), then make it the same age and higher. I'd rather be slightly unfair to both sexes equally than give one an advantage over the other for no good reason.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@Lil: Few 16-year-old girls do, likewise with boys. If anything, the age of consent should be increased to an age where someone could feasibly deal with a child.

It's the same kind of thing as alcohol: many people drink it to their own detriment because they don't think anything bad will happen. Ensuring that only adults can engage in these activities means that most people doing so will be more careful. I know quite a few teenagers who have had sex at a young age, and many of them take a lot of stupid risks.

Besides, why is sex so important. Should the laws really be changed just because a few teenagers are impatient and want to have sex immediately? Sure, a 16-year-old dude wouldn't be able to have sex with his 15-year-old lover, but it's not exactly a long wait for something that is hardly vital.

I don't think it's so bad. Being pregnant is a lot harder to deal with than getting a girl pregnant. To put it simply: girls take pregnancy harder, and should be older in order to deal with it. It's not sexist, it's common sense.

edited 7th Aug '11 6:27:58 PM by Heartbreaker

Leave your dignity at the door.